😎 Well, much like in"Cool Hand Luke", what we may have here is... [link - take a look!]!
⚛⚛ If you're just joining us, you probably should go back and start at the beginning of "the conversation" [the 7/22 post - click here]. Then scroll forward through the next 3 posts up to today - don't overlook the comments! Then... all this will make perfect sense! ⚛⚛
The discussion is about the erosion of democratic principles at SECU over the last 3 years [see - here]; including an, as yet unannounced, SECU Board bylaw amendment [see here]. The bylaw change would effectively eliminate the possibility for any future member-nominated board candidates. Required member petition signatures would be increased from 500 to somewhere between 6k and over 30k! Two members are currently seeking signatures as independent, member-nominated candidates in 2026.
🔥 So, now back for his third guest appearance is everyone's favorite anonymouse! Read the complete comment first: [Anonymous July 26, 2026 at 3:17 PM]! As Jack Nicholson said in "The Shining"... "Here's Johnny!".
1) "Don’t play stupid. Did we need to vote last year?" Well first, evidently you're pretty sure I don't have "to play" at being stupid, it just comes naturally! OK with that one! Are you saying that there wasn't an election at SECU last year; and therefore, no vote was "needed"?
2) "Re-read and try to comprehend my post. Simply pointing out there is a non-incumbent on slate, and he is not one of yours." Yes, I'll agree when there are no incumbents available, the committee must select someone new. But, you're sticking with your claim that incumbents when selected are the "most qualified" candidates?
3) "Remember at first they were “highly qualified”? Fog a mirror and the
committee will let you go get signatures to force your way on. That
doesn’t make you qualified. If it did maybe it wouldn’t have been such a
massive landslide with your four candidates a few years ago." I personally believe the 2 potential member-nominees are "highly qualified", but as you say that's just one opinion. But as I recall about that "massive landslide", in the 2024 board election Julian Hawes received over 31,000 member votes. The largest vote total for any candidate prior to 2024 was @7,000!
4) "A stupid question that deserves no response." Might ask of you here -"don't play stupid". You said the annual meeting was hijacked, not me. Which SECU annual meeting was "hijacked"? Or was that mis-stated?
5) "All eligible members were able to apply. But neither of your questions
are relevant to the point and I think we’ve shown how stupid your first
comment and question was." The nominating committee evidently said that 7 members applied, including the 3 on the slate and the 2 contenders, out of 3 million members.
6) "Except I notice you didn’t say I was wrong. We also know how ignorant you are about things outside of SECU." On your first point, I'm probably being too subtle about that, trying to be discreet. Will admit you're right on the second point, I realize how little I really know with each passing year... admire your self-assurance!
7) "I am 100% saying that. Of the candidates the committee reviews, they
select the most qualified. Just like they did again this year. The
others are deemed eligible and get to try and force their way on. It’s a
good process. It’s irresponsible, however, for them to beg for
signatures without demonstrating how they are qualified." OK, OK, got it! The 3 nominees for 2026 are not only "well-qualified" and "highly qualified", but are the "most qualified" of those who applied, right? Mr. Browning and Mr. Hawes are only eligible and qualified. Hopefully, if members permit them to be on the ballot, they will have an opportunity to demonstrate "how they are qualified". That isn't a problem, is it?
😎 My only real defense on the "don't play stupid" comment is Forrest Gump...[link]!
Last chance to download and mail your signature petition! Here's how [link]*
